Ah, two franchises that have been ruined by their recent incarnations.

I've been watching a lot of old Dr. Who recently (60's-70's) and the inferiority of the new material is painfully felt.

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

I just read in our local newspaper that this year, for the first time since the revival of the program in 2005, the Doctor Who Christmas special is to be aired in the United States the same time it's aired in the UK, not two weeks to a month later.

I just read in our local newspaper that this year, for the first time since the revival of the program in 2005, the Doctor Who Christmas special is to be aired in the United States the same time it's aired in the UK, not two weeks to a month later.

And, with my dumb luck, I still have to wait until January to download the video. (Our cable package doesn't have BBC America.)

I could never watch the old Dr. Who because I couldn't get past the cheesy effects.

Of course. The old show, not having a great budget, relied on solid writing and the effects were dodgy. The new show is all effects and the writing is crap. So, yes, if you would rather have fancy effects than an intelligent script, the new show is obviously superior.

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

I could never watch the old Dr. Who because I couldn't get past the cheesy effects.

Of course. The old show, not having a great budget, relied on solid writing and the effects were dodgy. The new show is all effects and the writing is crap. So, yes, if you would rather have fancy effects than an intelligent script, the new show is obviously superior.

Well, you evidently watch the show enough to know that it's so "crappy".

I could never watch the old Dr. Who because I couldn't get past the cheesy effects.

Of course. The old show, not having a great budget, relied on solid writing and the effects were dodgy. The new show is all effects and the writing is crap. So, yes, if you would rather have fancy effects than an intelligent script, the new show is obviously superior.

Well, you evidently watch the show enough to know that it's so "crappy".

Sadly true... Doctor Who is in my blood, so I'll pretty much watch anything with the name "Doctor Who" attached to it. Also, me wife really likes the new series...

« Last Edit: December 26, 2010, 12:01:31 PM by Iconodule »

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

LOL - I was thinking "My SIL would enjoy this greatly." Only to discover that his idea came from my SIL!

The Ortho-world is indeed small.

SIL?

Btw, as one of my colleagues at college said "you don't question 'Dr. Who.' You just accept it."

I've only seen a few of the latest incarnation, and the ones I saw I thought were well done, especially in comparison to the down hill it took under Sylvester McCoy. P.U.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I've only seen a few of the latest incarnation, and the ones I saw I thought were well done, especially in comparison to the down hill it took under Sylvester McCoy. P.U.

In my opinion, the new series generally exemplifies everything terrible about 1980's Dr. Who, but compounds it with its ADD 1-episode, 1-story format.

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

I've only seen a few of the latest incarnation, and the ones I saw I thought were well done, especially in comparison to the down hill it took under Sylvester McCoy. P.U.

In my opinion, the new series generally exemplifies everything terrible about 1980's Dr. Who, but compounds it with its ADD 1-episode, 1-story format.

Whilst I think the writing has been especially clever. The scripts are well written, the characters develop in a believable manner, and while it doesn't follow the serial format of the old series it does a really good job of tying in the disparate episodes into one over-arching super-plot (half the fun is re-watching a serial after the last episode and finding all the little hidden clues throughout the series. I didn't realize at first how prevalent the Saxon references were in Series 3).

It's not as good as the Tom Baker run, but, well, what COULD be as good as the Tom Baker run? Barring setting up a time-looped communication device to the 80's that would allow Douglas Adams to write a few scripts for Matt Smith, these past few years have been as good as Doctor Who gets. Definitely more than makes up for the Colin Baker years.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

Whilst I think the writing has been especially clever. The scripts are well written, the characters develop in a believable manner, and while it doesn't follow the serial format of the old series it does a really good job of tying in the disparate episodes into one over-arching super-plot (half the fun is re-watching a serial after the last episode and finding all the little hidden clues throughout the series. I didn't realize at first how prevalent the Saxon references were in Series 3).

I'm not a fan of the super-plots, especially when they involve the Doctor as some kind of god-like being at the center of the universe. This Doctor-as-god thing really got started with Sylvester McCoy, and it definitely should not have been resurrected. In most of the best Doctor Who stories, the Doctor had a role to play but he was not the center of attention. Note that the great "super-plot" of the old series, "The Key to Time", involved something much bigger than the Doctor himself. Keeping the Doctor smaller also helps keep him more mysterious and more interesting.

The Doctor, in the good stuff, relied on his wits. In the new series, he relies on "gimmicky gadgets" (as the Fourth Doctor called them) and his reputation as being really clever more than actually being clever. Instead of figuring things out or subtly manipulating from behind the scenes, the Doctor lectures his enemies on how many times he's defeated them before and how awesome he is. Yuck.

The serial format was superior because it allowed the writers to actually build and sustain believable worlds. The worlds that the new Doctor careens through are insubstantial throwaways.

The Daleks are simply terrible. How many times do they have to build a new empire in 1 episode and then have it destroyed by a lame deus ex machina in the next? Ditch the Daleks. The very first Dalek story with Eccleston, I'll admit, had merit, but everything after that has just continued the legacy of Daleks as stock monsters.

Quote

It's not as good as the Tom Baker run, but, well, what COULD be as good as the Tom Baker run?

Fair enough, but can we last least try for Pertwee?

« Last Edit: December 26, 2010, 07:47:10 PM by Iconodule »

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

Whilst I think the writing has been especially clever. The scripts are well written, the characters develop in a believable manner, and while it doesn't follow the serial format of the old series it does a really good job of tying in the disparate episodes into one over-arching super-plot (half the fun is re-watching a serial after the last episode and finding all the little hidden clues throughout the series. I didn't realize at first how prevalent the Saxon references were in Series 3).

I'm not a fan of the super-plots, especially when they involve the Doctor as some kind of god-like being at the center of the universe. This Doctor-as-god thing really got started with Sylvester McCoy, and it definitely should not have been resurrected. In most of the best Doctor Who stories, the Doctor had a role to play but he was not the center of attention. Note that the great "super-plot" of the old series, "The Key to Time", involved something much bigger than the Doctor himself. Keeping the Doctor smaller also helps keep him more mysterious and more interesting.

The Doctor, in the good stuff, relied on his wits. In the new series, he relies on "gimmicky gadgets" (as the Fourth Doctor called them) and his reputation as being really clever more than actually being clever. Instead of figuring things out or subtly manipulating from behind the scenes, the Doctor lectures his enemies on how many times he's defeated them before and how awesome he is. Yuck.

The serial format was superior because it allowed the writers to actually build and sustain believable worlds. The worlds that the new Doctor careens through are insubstantial throwaways.

The Daleks are simply terrible. How many times do they have to build a new empire in 1 episode and then have it destroyed by a lame deus ex machina in the next? Ditch the Daleks. The very first Dalek story with Eccleston, I'll admit, had merit, but everything after that has just continued the legacy of Daleks as stock monsters.

Quote

It's not as good as the Tom Baker run, but, well, what COULD be as good as the Tom Baker run?

Fair enough, but can we last least try for Pertwee?

Did you watch the last series? A lot of the things you bring up have been addressed. Granted, there were Daleks (and I will agree with you on their over-use. Two season finales that had the Daleks as culprits? After the Doctor supposedly sacrificed his own species to exterminate them from the universe? Get over it already. The only problem is, there are more fanboys who would cry over a Dalek-free season than there are those like us who would rather see them gone for a season or three), but overall the Matt Smith Doctor has been much more on-the-ball than the 10th Doctor.

Better than Pertwee, I'd rate it a solid Troughton.

I'd also like to point out that the old serials were 3-4 episodes at 24 minutes apiece. Not all that much longer than our current 1-2 episode stories.

« Last Edit: December 26, 2010, 08:22:48 PM by FormerReformer »

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

Whilst I think the writing has been especially clever. The scripts are well written, the characters develop in a believable manner, and while it doesn't follow the serial format of the old series it does a really good job of tying in the disparate episodes into one over-arching super-plot (half the fun is re-watching a serial after the last episode and finding all the little hidden clues throughout the series. I didn't realize at first how prevalent the Saxon references were in Series 3).

I'm not a fan of the super-plots, especially when they involve the Doctor as some kind of god-like being at the center of the universe. This Doctor-as-god thing really got started with Sylvester McCoy, and it definitely should not have been resurrected. In most of the best Doctor Who stories, the Doctor had a role to play but he was not the center of attention. Note that the great "super-plot" of the old series, "The Key to Time", involved something much bigger than the Doctor himself. Keeping the Doctor smaller also helps keep him more mysterious and more interesting.

The Doctor, in the good stuff, relied on his wits. In the new series, he relies on "gimmicky gadgets" (as the Fourth Doctor called them) and his reputation as being really clever more than actually being clever. Instead of figuring things out or subtly manipulating from behind the scenes, the Doctor lectures his enemies on how many times he's defeated them before and how awesome he is. Yuck.

The serial format was superior because it allowed the writers to actually build and sustain believable worlds. The worlds that the new Doctor careens through are insubstantial throwaways.

The Daleks are simply terrible. How many times do they have to build a new empire in 1 episode and then have it destroyed by a lame deus ex machina in the next? Ditch the Daleks. The very first Dalek story with Eccleston, I'll admit, had merit, but everything after that has just continued the legacy of Daleks as stock monsters.

Quote

It's not as good as the Tom Baker run, but, well, what COULD be as good as the Tom Baker run?

Whilst I think the writing has been especially clever. The scripts are well written, the characters develop in a believable manner, and while it doesn't follow the serial format of the old series it does a really good job of tying in the disparate episodes into one over-arching super-plot (half the fun is re-watching a serial after the last episode and finding all the little hidden clues throughout the series. I didn't realize at first how prevalent the Saxon references were in Series 3).

I'm not a fan of the super-plots, especially when they involve the Doctor as some kind of god-like being at the center of the universe. This Doctor-as-god thing really got started with Sylvester McCoy, and it definitely should not have been resurrected. In most of the best Doctor Who stories, the Doctor had a role to play but he was not the center of attention. Note that the great "super-plot" of the old series, "The Key to Time", involved something much bigger than the Doctor himself. Keeping the Doctor smaller also helps keep him more mysterious and more interesting.

The Doctor, in the good stuff, relied on his wits. In the new series, he relies on "gimmicky gadgets" (as the Fourth Doctor called them) and his reputation as being really clever more than actually being clever. Instead of figuring things out or subtly manipulating from behind the scenes, the Doctor lectures his enemies on how many times he's defeated them before and how awesome he is. Yuck.

The serial format was superior because it allowed the writers to actually build and sustain believable worlds. The worlds that the new Doctor careens through are insubstantial throwaways.

The Daleks are simply terrible. How many times do they have to build a new empire in 1 episode and then have it destroyed by a lame deus ex machina in the next? Ditch the Daleks. The very first Dalek story with Eccleston, I'll admit, had merit, but everything after that has just continued the legacy of Daleks as stock monsters.

Quote

It's not as good as the Tom Baker run, but, well, what COULD be as good as the Tom Baker run?

Fair enough, but can we last least try for Pertwee?

Did you watch the last series? A lot of the things you bring up have been addressed. Granted, there were Daleks (and I will agree with you on their over-use. Two season finales that had the Daleks as culprits? After the Doctor supposedly sacrificed his own species to exterminate them from the universe? Get over it already. The only problem is, there are more fanboys who would cry over a Dalek-free season than there are those like us who would rather see them gone for a season or three), but overall the Matt Smith Doctor has been much more on-the-ball than the 10th Doctor.

Better than Pertwee, I'd rate it a solid Troughton.

I'd also like to point out that the old serials were 3-4 episodes at 24 minutes apiece. Not all that much longer than our current 1-2 episode stories.

Then it was 26 half-hour-long episodes per season with usually 4-6 episodes (2-3 hours) of air time per story line. Now it's 13 hour-long episodes per season with only 1-2 hours of air time per story line. Not much difference in total air time. Of course, the stories do wrap up in much less actual time (1-2 weeks vs. the 4-6 weeks of the classic series), and we see much more of them over the course of one season. I can see this cutting out much of the story development and the cliffhanger endings between episodes that many of the Classic Doctor Who fans loved. Some will like the change, some won't mind the change, and some in the old school, like our own Iconodule, will balk at the change. In the end, I guess it's all just a matter of viewer preference.

Of course fans will have their preferences. Where the Doctor is concerned they always have. Nothing annoys me more than someone who has seen only the new series deride the older series because it's not as flashy. At the same time, it annoys me when you have some form of Classic Who vs New Who debate. This isn't Star Trek where you have the differences of Old Series, Next Generation, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and Star Trek Kirk's Crew 2.0. This is Doctor Who. Sure there have been some changes in the intervening 17 years of the show's hiatus, but change has been an inherent part of Doctor Who since the first regeneration. The content of the stories is much the same as it always was: the Doctor comes across some mysterious threat in his travels and figures out a way to defeat it. Some times the threat seems comparatively small, sometimes it's of universal proportions, but the Doctor rises to the challenge.

It seems rather to be missing the point to completely dismiss the "New" series as not matching up to the "Old" series. The fact of the matter is the older shows were rather hit or miss, as any TV series is going to be, especially one that has over 20 years of running time (with the newer episodes I believe it's much closer to 30). With a show like this, featuring a continuing character from it's inception, the only way to judge it is as a whole.

FWIW I'd say the quality depends on the incarnation of the Doctor (as the actors playing the Doctor seem to be related to the writing staff helming the show). So, we can argue about which Doctor is better, or even rate them (placing Colin Baker at the bottom of the list), but it's pointless to use a New vs Old dynamic, because no matter the complaint about the more recent shows, I can show you the ridiculousness which is the earlier Pertwee years where the Doctor was stranded on Earth.

But regardless, I think we can all agree that the current series is better than Colin Baker, and that even Colin Baker's run was better than the TV movie. And for this we should all be happy.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

It's not as good as the Tom Baker run, but, well, what COULD be as good as the Tom Baker run?

\Did you watch the last series? A lot of the things you bring up have been addressed.

Yeah, I did. It contained the worst Dalek story in the history of Doctor Who ("Victory of the Daleks"), and that's saying something. Even worse than "Revelation of the Daleks"! It contained an incredibly stupid story arc resulting in yet another load of "The Doctor is the center of the universe" rubbish. The Sontarans, Daleks, Cybermen, Silurians, etc. all appearing together is pure fanboy drivel. The Weeping Angels were cool in their first appearance but I don't think they work as recurring villains- their gimmick wears thin. Speaking of gimmicks, destroy that stupid sonic screwdriver, for good this time! I honestly was hoping this series would be an improvement but it looks like Steve Moffat put all his talent into Sherlock and put Doctor Who on autopilot.

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

It's not as good as the Tom Baker run, but, well, what COULD be as good as the Tom Baker run?

\Did you watch the last series? A lot of the things you bring up have been addressed.

Yeah, I did. It contained the worst Dalek story in the history of Doctor Who ("Victory of the Daleks"), and that's saying something. Even worse than "Revelation of the Daleks"! It contained an incredibly stupid story arc resulting in yet another load of "The Doctor is the center of the universe" rubbish. The Sontarans, Daleks, Cybermen, Silurians, etc. all appearing together is pure fanboy drivel. The Weeping Angels were cool in their first appearance but I don't think they work as recurring villains- their gimmick wears thin. Speaking of gimmicks, destroy that stupid sonic screwdriver, for good this time! I honestly was hoping this series would be an improvement but it looks like Steve Moffat put all his talent into Sherlock and put Doctor Who on autopilot.

Destroy the sonic screwdriver? You may just as well destroy a jedi's lightsaber, or Star Trek's phaser. If the Doctor should be using one gadget, it's the sonic screwdriver. Thing's been around since Troughton. Even Tom Baker used the sonic regularly. You'll want them to destroy the TARDIS next.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

It's not as good as the Tom Baker run, but, well, what COULD be as good as the Tom Baker run?

\Did you watch the last series? A lot of the things you bring up have been addressed.

Yeah, I did. It contained the worst Dalek story in the history of Doctor Who ("Victory of the Daleks"), and that's saying something. Even worse than "Revelation of the Daleks"! It contained an incredibly stupid story arc resulting in yet another load of "The Doctor is the center of the universe" rubbish. The Sontarans, Daleks, Cybermen, Silurians, etc. all appearing together is pure fanboy drivel. The Weeping Angels were cool in their first appearance but I don't think they work as recurring villains- their gimmick wears thin. Speaking of gimmicks, destroy that stupid sonic screwdriver, for good this time! I honestly was hoping this series would be an improvement but it looks like Steve Moffat put all his talent into Sherlock and put Doctor Who on autopilot.

Destroy the sonic screwdriver? You may just as well destroy a jedi's lightsaber, or Star Trek's phaser. If the Doctor should be using one gadget, it's the sonic screwdriver. Thing's been around since Troughton. Even Tom Baker used the sonic regularly. You'll want them to destroy the TARDIS next.

The TARDIS gets the Doctor places. It does not replace problem-solving skills like the screwdriver does. And the screwdriver is certainly not an essential artifact like a light saber. I can think of plenty of great Doctor Who stories with not a screwdriver in sight.

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

It's not as good as the Tom Baker run, but, well, what COULD be as good as the Tom Baker run?

\Did you watch the last series? A lot of the things you bring up have been addressed.

Yeah, I did. It contained the worst Dalek story in the history of Doctor Who ("Victory of the Daleks"), and that's saying something. Even worse than "Revelation of the Daleks"! It contained an incredibly stupid story arc resulting in yet another load of "The Doctor is the center of the universe" rubbish. The Sontarans, Daleks, Cybermen, Silurians, etc. all appearing together is pure fanboy drivel. The Weeping Angels were cool in their first appearance but I don't think they work as recurring villains- their gimmick wears thin. Speaking of gimmicks, destroy that stupid sonic screwdriver, for good this time! I honestly was hoping this series would be an improvement but it looks like Steve Moffat put all his talent into Sherlock and put Doctor Who on autopilot.

Destroy the sonic screwdriver? You may just as well destroy a jedi's lightsaber, or Star Trek's phaser. If the Doctor should be using one gadget, it's the sonic screwdriver. Thing's been around since Troughton. Even Tom Baker used the sonic regularly. You'll want them to destroy the TARDIS next.

The TARDIS gets the Doctor places. It does not replace problem-solving skills like the screwdriver does. And the screwdriver is certainly not an essential artifact like a light saber. I can think of plenty of great Doctor Who stories with not a screwdriver in sight.

Nah. You get rid of the sonic, next thing you know the Doctor's problem-solving crutch returns to "reversing the polarity". That screw-driver is to the Doctor what a paper-clip, styrofoam cup, and wad of gum is to McGuyver. Or duct-tape to air-plane mechanics.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White